Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

The jury had to fill out questionaires not really give a verdict. However it's been reported many times that Samsungs legal team was not very good at speaking to the jury and trying to convince them about the facts. I think that Samsung was prepping more for the appellate courts than it was for the jury.

I just got a Samsung Galaxy Note phone yesterday. Does that mean that all the apps, via android, won't work in the future? I guess I should've got the i-Phone4s instead, oh well........Here's a link talking about the ramifications of the verdict.....

So is there an appeal process for something like this or is it finally over with?

did you expect anything else but Apple to win? After all people venerate that company and offer tithes to the grand altar of Apple. Not even sure why they had the court decision, apple was going to win by default of their greatness

But, did the jury have the ability to say that the Apple patents were invalid? Apple does have the patent for pinch and zoom as an example. Whether they should have been able to get that patent is a valid argument, but they do.

Software patents are the issue, not Apple. There is a company that has been suing coffee shops and other businesses for offering wifi, because they claim wifi infringes on their patents. We've had companies sue for infringement of patents they hold, but the patent holder doesn't actually have any products of their own. Their business model basically is to sue or scare companies to license their patents. Some of them aren't even things they invented, just patents they bought.

did you expect anything else but Apple to win? After all people venerate that company and offer tithes to the grand altar of Apple. Not even sure why they had the court decision, apple was going to win by default of their greatness

Geez, I'm surprised at all the anger. Apple had some great ideas, which they want to charge a premium for. Samsung needs to either come up with their own ideas or pay the price. That's why the patent office exists. I don't hear anyone complaining when Pfizer charges $50 a bottle for some new anti-depressant that can't be turned into a generic for years. Like it or not, that's how our country works.

Samsung needs to either come up with their own ideas or pay the price. That's why the patent office exists. I don't hear anyone complaining when Pfizer charges $50 a bottle for some new anti-depressant that can't be turned into a generic for years. Like it or not, that's how our country works.

I have mostly all of their products, and IMO, this "win" is a huge loss for consumers. Without Samsung and Google, you don't have notifications on your iPhone right now and don't have built in nav coming with ios6.

I have mostly all of their products, and IMO, this "win" is a huge loss for consumers. Without Samsung and Google, you don't have notifications on your iPhone right now and don't have built in nav coming with ios6.

I agree that products will cost more due to this verdict. I was inquiring about the vehement bitterness expressed by a few, not you that I've seen.

Not clear on notifications- do you mean the popups?, and while iPhones have employed Google maps in their app, is that really a part of the litigation? Wasn't that done by agreement? And isn't Apple putting in their own mapping systems and database?

My guess is much of the loathing for apple stems from direct statements made by Jobs that he fully intended to kill off Android. Since it would be very difficult for Apple to sue Google for damages they have decided to go after the manufacturers that are delivering Android based devices.

This is definitely bad news for the consumer. It will not be the last lawsuit coming from Apple as you can bet preparations are already being made to sue others in the same way. If this is allowed to continue the only competitive options will be triangular shaped phones with mechanical push buttons.

Apple did not invent the rectangle with rounded corners, touch screen interface or even soft icons on a screen. They did not invent the portable mp3 player, cell phone or tablet computer. Saying that the ipod, iphone and ipad are completely new and unique devices not based on any previous technology or idea is completely bogus. If they are allowed to continue the methodical destruction of competition in the marketplace through patent litigation our system is not just broken it is a joke.

Saying that the ipod, iphone and ipad are completely new and unique devices not based on any previous technology or idea is completely bogus. If they are allowed to continue the methodical destruction of competition in the marketplace through patent litigation our system is not just broken it is a joke.

Has Apple or its lawyers made that contention?

Are they methodically destroying competition? No doubt putting a dent in it, but enforcing patents has long been a part of capitalist America, as well as the United Kingdom, perhaps other countries.

have 200 Ipads and about 130 iphones in service for myself and other people, I absolutely detest the company, but the technology works for what we need so we use it. when something comes along that is more suitable they will be shreded, until then we will use them. I doubt that the jurors where unbiased

have 200 Ipads and about 130 iphones in service for myself and other people, I absolutely detest the company, but the technology works for what we need so we use it. when something comes along that is more suitable they will be shreded, until then we will use them. I doubt that the jurors where unbiased

Geez, I'm surprised at all the anger. Apple had some great ideas, which they want to charge a premium for. Samsung needs to either come up with their own ideas or pay the price. That's why the patent office exists. I don't hear anyone complaining when Pfizer charges $50 a bottle for some new anti-depressant that can't be turned into a generic for years. Like it or not, that's how our country works.

ever wonder how many hundreds of million dollars go into the development of the drug and the additional hunreds of millions of dollars that go in for the acceptace testing by the fda for new drugs?

A single pivotal human subject study by a cro for their company can run 1 - 2 million dollars for the single study, that is the first human testing that is done, prior to that there are numerous other test that are trun. As far as generic the lipitor patent ended in 2011, generics where testing back in 2009 - the cost to develop the generic and human testing of the drug is a lot cheaper then the development of the new drug. Sorry comparing Apple's development to a drug released for human consumption is invalid, although a lot of peple believe the apple is as addictive as some of the drugs onthe market. Apple just has to deal with the patent office, drug companies have to deal with fda regulations, which make everything else look like a piker in cost